Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to honor Mr. Laurence R. (Campy) Campton as he celebrates his 85th birthday on October 27, 2001. I want to recognize Campy for his love of his country and dedicated patriotism first exemplified during his service in World War II. Campy has seen some of the most horrifying scenes in American war history. Mr. Campton landed on Utah Beach at Normandy where Campy and his comrades in the Fourth Infantry Division made the initial push to drive the Nazi forces back into Germany. German soldiers later captured Campy during the Battle of the Bulge. He remained a captive of the Nazi troops until he was finally liberated by American soldiers and spent the remainder of his tour in Europe in a hospital bed in France. It is my privilege to acknowledge Campy for the sacrifices he made that future generations would enjoy the freedoms and liberties that shape the American way of life. Furthermore, I wish to honor Campy for the bravery he showed on the battlefields of France and the leadership he took back to Colorado where he became an active member of the community. Campy and his wife Daisy have made significant contributions to their local neighborhood in Salida, Colorado where they have lived since 1949. Campy has always put his community first serving as the Chaffee County Veterans Services Officer and was recently named the Veterans Service Officer of the Year at the annual state convention. Campy is also a devoted family man as he and Daisy raised three children to respect and love their country. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Campton is a role model to all Americans. Campy represents a thread in the fabric of our nation. It is my honor to recognize a Mr. Laurence R. (Campy) Campton for his lifetime of achievements from the battlefields of France to the local Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Salida, Colorado. It is my pleasure to offer Campy the thanks from our nation and my warmest regards.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the contributions that Stewart R. Wallace has made to the mining industry in Colorado. He has made significant strides in the field of exploratory geology. Mr. Wallace's years of work have led to substantial advances in the field of geology. Stewart Wallace, born in 1919, has spent the majority of his life developing the molybdenum mining industry through extensive geological studies. In 1955, Stewart began working for Climax Molybdenum in Climax, Colorado. His studies have contributed to a better understanding of the geology of molybdenum ore bodies and aided in developing models that help predict the location of the ore bodies. His most significant discoveries included the Henderson Mine and the Ceresco Ore body at Red Mountain and Climax, respectively. These discoveries provided a significant boost to the Colorado mining industry. Additionally, Stewart's work with molybdenum have also led to significant advances in producing stronger steel alloys. Mr. Speaker, Stewart Wallace was recently recognized for his achievements at the 2001 National Mining Hall of Fame induction ceremony. I too would like to recognize Mr. Wallace and thank him for the contributions that he has made to the Colorado Mining industry.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, when someone is stranded in the backcountry and a search and rescue team is called into action, dedicated and brave individuals respond to the call of those in need. Today I would like to rise and honor the service and contributions of Art Cook, a 14-year veteran with the Mesa County Search and Rescue, whose service has led him to be one of the most respected members of his squad and who was recently recognized by the Lions Club in Grand Junction, Colorado for his selfless acts. In the vast terrain of Colorado, the vehicles needed for search and rescue differ from region to region. However, the need for four-wheel drive vehicles always seems to be a necessity and Art established the four-wheel-drive division of the Mesa County Search and Rescue. Not only did he implement this crucial component to the service, Art also created a unique and very effective mechanism for rescuing someone out of the backcountry. His innovation has been appreciated tremendously and has served to make the Mesa County Search and Rescue a better operation. Art began his volunteer service in 1987 after retiring from Mountain Bell. Now 67 years of age, Art has helped to save numerous lives and has extended a warm and helping hand in numerous instances. At times, his dedication worries his family but that does not halt his volunteering. This award from the Lions Club was accompanied with a check to be given to the Search and Rescue team. Mr. Speaker, Art Cook has offered himself and his expertise to others on many rescues. His honorable and commendable service is greatly appreciated. I would like to take this moment to congratulate Art on his recent recognition and extend my warmest regards and best wishes to him and his family in many years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, special care is needed both medically and emotionally as a person nears the end of their life. Today, I would like to honor a woman whose contributions will never be forgotten as she has provided this care for countless patients throughout her own life. Carolyn Jaffe, a nurse who helped to establish the Hospice of Metro Denver in 1978, passed away on September 27, 2001 at the age of 76 and we will missed by the many whose lives she has touched. Carolyn was born in Youngstown, Ohio and received her doctorate degree from the University of Denver in 1965. Always selflessly devoting her actions to the care of others in need, Carolyn worked at the Children's Hospital from 1971 until 1983 when she retired. Throughout this time, she directed the audiology and speech pathology department while serving in numerous other capacities in the community. Carolyn concentrated a great deal of her energy with Hospice in addition to her full time job at the Children's Hospital. Since implementing her vision in 1978 with the Hospice, over 700 patients have experienced the tender thoughtfulness of the facility and its people. In fact, the Hospice of Metro Denver has developed into the largest hospice in the Rocky Mountain region. Carolyn and her co- founder realized how sensitive this time is and the critical conditions that people face in life. Thus, they created the Hospice to provide a setting that creates a sense of comfort and security to its patients. This transformational approach, outlined in her book All Kinds of Love: Experiencing Hospice, which she co-authored with Carol H. Ehrlich, viewed dying patients as people worthy of care and not just subjects that consume resources. Mr. Speaker, Carolyn Jaffe was a highly respected member of the Denver community and never asked for anything in return for her helping hands. Just as she helped many others and their transition to a life without a loved one, it is our time to assist her family and friends at this time of remembrance and mourning. With a solemn heart, I would like to extend my deepest sympathies and the respect and sympathies of this body of Congress to her family and wish them all of the best in years to come. Carolyn was a tremendous person and she will be missed greatly.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor an American who fought bravely for our country during World War II. Harvey Willoughby, a resident of Montrose, Colorado, was a soldier in the 268th Field Artillery Battalion that fought courageously for our country during the war. Harvey's outfit was unique to the war effort. His battalion was armed with 8-inch guns that seemed more fitting for a battleship. They were capable of firing great distances and hitting targets beyond enemy lines. This gave the Allied forces an advantage that helped them forge forward through German forces. The 268th Field Artillery Battalion landed on the shores of Omaha Beach on August 27, 1944 following the historic D-Day invasion. After their arrival in St. Malo, it took less than three days for the 268th to overwhelm the German and Italian forces that were stationed there. Harvey and his battalion made their way east with their burly equipment and enormous guns fighting their way through Ubachsburgh, Aachen and several other cities until finally forcing German troops back across the Rhine. Harvey proudly served his country and earned several citations including the Bronze Star for his service during the war. Mr. Speaker, Harvey Willoughby fought bravely for our country. As a nation, we are indebted to him for the perseverance and heroism Harvey displayed during World War II. I would like to extend my warmest regards and thanks and the recognition of this Congress to Harvey Willoughby for the monumental sacrifices that he has made in service to our Flag.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the bravery of a remarkable young man. Until last May, Mitchell Wright was a joyful, healthy nine-year-old boy without the burdens of a serious illness. Today, he lives with a rare strain of cancer called rhabdomyosarcoma that most nine-year-old children could not even imagine, or yet, overcome. Mitchell discovered the cancer himself and approached his mother about it. They went to see doctors and their worst-case scenario was soon realized. Experts say that this type of cancer is usually not found until it is too late, but luckily Mitchell discovered the tumor when treatment was possible. Mitchell has been traveling from Grand Junction to undergoe chemotherapy and radiation therapy in Denver every three weeks and will continue to do so for another year. Mitchell has a tough road in front of him including numerous doctor checkups for the next five years. It is a well-known fact that the treatments that Mitchell is receiving have extremely uncomfortable side effects, but Mitchell is courageously enduring these struggles and his friends and family are standing by him. It is my honor to stand up with Mitchell's family and friends to support him during this time and recognize the bravery this young man has demonstrated. Mitchell is a courageous individual, but he is not alone in his struggle. He is surrounded by a community that provides strength and support in Mitchell's battle to overcome rhabdomyosarcoma. My thoughts and prayers along with those of this Congress are with Mitchell and his family during these difficult times.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, to serve the public as an officer of the law is truly a noble deed worthy of the praise from this body. These brave souls are the forgotten heroes of the day despite their importance to our country and to the welfare of the public. David Roberts, an outstanding retired police officer who served the Denver Police Department, considered being a police officer one of the greatest and most rewarding aspects of his life. The Denver chapter of the International Footprint Association has offered their praise by honoring him at the second annual Forgotten Officer Recognition Dinner. I too, would like to raise the service of this officer before this House and recognize his efforts to the service of the people of Denver, Colorado. Although David is no longer an active officer, his heart is still captivated with a selfless devotion to others. In 1985, he experienced a gunshot wound to his mouth that ended his career. David had been with the department for only six years when one incident ended his career. The man who shot Officer Roberts was subsequently sentenced to 80 years in prison and David has been paralyzed on his left side since. This potential setback, though, has not fazed David and he is still involved with training officers by teaching them at police academies. He attempts to offer a glimpse of what to do should something of such traumatic magnitude strike them in the line of duty. But his teachings pertain to life more than just police duty. Mr. Speaker, David Roberts gave a portion of himself to protecting the citizens of Denver and his service will not be forgotten. While the recognition he has received by the International Footprint Association is a piece of our appreciation, his admiration extends much further than an award. He is not a forgotten hero and will be considered a guardian to our security forever. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the commendable and valiant service of David Roberts and extend to him my warmest regards and best wishes in the many years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I want to visit about a couple of areas in regards to terrorism. Obviously, the issues that are on this floor, the issues that have overwhelmed the United States since the ugly events of September 11 have centered on terrorism and centered on defense and the home security of this Nation. This afternoon I want to spend a few minutes of my Special Order talking about two different types of terrorism and what we can do about it, and also incorporate in some of the defense mechanisms for some of the homeland security that I think we need to have. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by talking about a level of terrorism that has been lost in the battle, and that is the concept called ecoterrorism that is occurring within the borders of the United States. What does ecoterrorism roughly describe? What has happened is there are some activists out there, citizens of this country or people acting within the borders of this country in regards to environmental issues that feel that they can only get attention if they do some type of destruction to some symbol, whether it is putting steel rods into a tree that they are afraid is going to be cut for timber so that the logger who comes up and uses a chain saw risks hitting that steel nail with his chain saw, and could physically harm him; and thus, the loggers, knowing that these trees may have these steel spikes inserted randomly into trees, they are afraid to log them; to the situation we had in Vail, Colorado, where they burned down a $13 million lodge all using the front of environmentalism. Mr. Speaker, many of us on this floor feel very strong about the environment of this country; but none of us on this floor should tolerate for one moment ecoterrorism, the kind of things that occurred in Vail, Colorado, the kind of things that occurred in the district of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the kinds of things where people intentionally spike these trees so that somebody that goes in to log any of these trees stands the risk of losing their life if they put a chain saw to that tree. That type of behavior is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health of the Committee on Resources, and we will be focusing in the several months ahead on ecoterrorism and what we can do to encourage people in this country to work within the framework of our law if they have disagreement on environmental policies. Unfortunately, what has happen is some people are looking for a cause. Deep down they do not care about the environment. They care about destruction, and they want to hook onto any kind of cause they can hook onto. We have seen this in many of the protests. Many of the people, outside of the professionals who have been hired to run the protests, many people do not have a deep-down belief in the cause that they are protesting or the cause for which they are assisting ecoterrorism within the boundaries of the country. It is just a cause. It is something for them to do. Unfortunately what has happened is some people have turned a blind eye, because this destruction, this terrorism, is being activated under the so-called cloak of protecting the environment. As I said earlier, all of my colleagues here feel strongly about the protection of our environment. Sure we have different debates on how we interpret that issue. But nobody on this floor, I would hope, would condone ecoterrorism in this country. And in the not too distant future, we ought to have people like the National Sierra Club, like Earth First, like the Conservation League, without prompting from the United States Congress, these organizations ought to step forward and actively condemn acts of ecoterrorism to try and forward some type of environmental agenda. It is a problem in this country and it is a problem that has begun to escalate. It is getting bigger and bigger. They went from putting spikes in a tree to damaging equipment that was sitting on a site. Pretty soon they moved up to burning $13 million buildings in Vail, Colorado, which is within my district. These types of acts to me are dangerous acts. Obviously they do not rise to the level of the horrible terrorism that we saw on September 11, and I intend to spend a good part of my time this evening, or this afternoon, addressing those particular issues. But it, nonetheless, is a small cancer of its own. It is a cancer that we have to get ahead of. And it is something that we have to have a zero tolerance for in our society. I urge my colleagues, if you have any constituents out there that share with you any type of support that they are giving to ecoterrorist type of activity, that you actively discourage them, and if any kind of information is shared with you that these individuals are breaking the law, I think you have an obligation to go to the authorities and report your conversation with these ecoterrorists. We have to adopt and every respectable environmental organization in this country ought to adopt a zero tolerance of ecoterrorism. We have seen what happens when so- called terrorism gets taken out of context, when so-called terrorism goes to the extent that it has gone on September 11. So we need to get on top of this ecoterrorism that we now are seeing within our own borders, our own citizens who have chosen not to work within the framework of the law but to break the law and to flagrantly break the law in such a way as to cause ecoterrorism. We had a hearing today. We have issued a subpoena. There is an organization out there called ELF, E-L-F. This organization has a spokesman. This spokesman, I think, is probably one of the most radical American citizens in regards to ecoterrorism. I have asked that that individual be subpoenaed. Today, the full Committee on Resources, not the subcommittee, but the full Committee on Resources issued a subpoena. We fully intend to serve that subpoena and have that individual appear in front of my subcommittee, and hopefully later on in front of the full committee, to explain on what basis that an individual or a group of individuals or an organization or an association should be allowed to step out and create this type of terrorist act under the guise of protection of the environment. I am going to go on. I want to proceed from ecoterrorism and make the transition here to the terrorist acts of September 11. Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to my colleague the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). Rural Development Amendment to Farm Security Act of 2001

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my comments, I talked about ecoterrorism in the United States. I want my colleagues to understand that it is the goal of my committee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, which has jurisdiction over some of the properties upon which the crime of ecoterrorism has occurred, that our committee is considering this a priority, and in light of the horrible terrorist act that occurred on September 11, once we restabilize from that situation, our subcommittee intends to aggressively pursue those people who condone or somehow participate in ecoterrorism within the boundaries of our country. Terrorist acts of any kind, to forward or push forward the agenda of any cause, is improper when utilized in that type of form. We have wonderful laws in this country, and there are lots of laws, and our Constitution itself provides for things like the freedom of speech. You can walk down and protest, the freedom of protest. There are lots of tools available to those who object to current laws or to those who object to the direction this country is going without you having to resort to breaking a law. That is the key issue here. Whether it is terrorism performed by another country, which we unfortunately saw on September 11, or whether it is ecoterrorism that is performed within our own boundaries. I just want to remind my colleagues, this is exactly what took place in my district. My district is the Third Congressional District of the State of Colorado. It is the mountains of Colorado. We have up there Vail, Colorado, and in Vail, Colorado, just 3 years ago, we had some terrorists, U.S. citizens, we suspect, and we suspect from an organization called the ELF organization that went up, and this structure is a $13 million structure and it was completely inflamed. They burned that structure. That structure was not built illegally. That structure was not in violation of any local zoning code. It was just in violation of the mindset of a few radical, criminal elements within the boundaries of our country who decided that the only way to address this issue was not to approach the local zoning board, not to approach any elected officials, not to go out and have an open protest at the city center. Instead, the way to do it is very slyly at night sneak in and put all kinds of fuel in this lodge and burn it to the ground. I wish those people knew how many trees were cut to replace the trees that were burned in this lodge. I wish those people that committed that act of eco-terrorism understood how many jobs were lost. Not jobs of multimillionaires or jobs of executives; these are jobs of people that ran concessionaire shops, or jobs of people, even the maintenance people, that worked in these facilities. They lost their jobs. I hope those eco-terrorists feel real proud of themselves. But I want people to know, and I want my colleagues to understand, that I intend to continue to pressure our law enforcement agencies to pursue eco-terrorism as actively as they are pursuing other criminal acts against our society. I appreciate the committee's support today. We had only one ``no'' vote in the committee, in the whole committee, which objected to the issuance of a subpoena to this spokesman for the organization called ELF, which is probably the most radical eco- terrorist organization in the United States. Now let me transition, because I want to talk for the rest of my time about the horrible cancer that we have discovered and we have suffered since September 11. We actually know that the cancer existed beforehand, but September 11 is obviously where it was made evident. All of us understand exactly what I am talking about. My comparison to terrorism and cancer, I think, is an analogy which fits perfectly. I know of no cancer, I know of no cancer, ever discovered in the history of mankind that is friendly to the human body. I know of no cancer that has ever been discovered or researched by the medical experts in our country that is recommended for the human body. Cancer is cancer, and it is deadly in many cases. We know that we have to take an aggressive fight against cancer. You cannot love cancer away. Do not misunderstand me. Love is an important element. It helps build up the psychological strength that you need to fight cancer. You cannot pray cancer away. Many people, many of your constituents may disagree with me and believe that prayer alone will get rid of that cancer. In my opinion, and I am a strong Christian, in my opinion the Supreme Being that I believe in thinks that a person has to deploy a little self-help; that, sure, prayer is a necessary part of the fight against cancer, but you cannot do it on prayer alone. You have got to go in and aggressively cut that cancer out of there. That is exactly what we need to do with terrorism. That act of terrorism, no matter what they say, no matter if they try and justify it, justify the terrorist act of September 11, do not buy it for one moment. It is a vicious cancer, and no cancer is good for the human body. And no act of terrorism is good, for not only our society, it is not good for the society of the entire world, regardless of which country you come from. We need to battle this, and we need to battle it as aggressively as any one of my colleagues would battle cancer within your own body. Not for one moment, if you had cancer, and some of my colleagues have experienced it, not for one moment have you ever found anybody that says, well, the cancer in your body is justified. You had it coming. You deserved that cancer because of an action you took. Even for those people who smoke, we do not say to them, well, you deserve the cancer. We may say, look, you may have contributed to this, but it does not justice the cancer. It is the same thing with this terrorism. I would ask people as you begin, and I am beginning to see this in newspaper articles, or I am beginning to see it in the commentary and editorial papers, well, the United States, you know, when we sit back and take a look at it, maybe the United States was too aggressive on its foreign policy, or maybe the United States kind of deserved it because they were bullies. What a bunch of crap; unacceptable crap, in my opinion. Unacceptable. There is no justification, there is no excuse, none, zero, that you can put forward for the kind of atrocities that were performed against this country, that were activated against the people of the world. Remember, remember, 80 separate countries lost citizens in these terrorist attacks of September 11. Every ethnic race that I know of, every ethnic background that I know of suffered losses as a result of this terrorist act. The Muslim people, people of Islam, the religion of Islam and the Muslim population suffered some horrible losses in this act of terrorism. This act of terrorism did not discriminate between women and children and mothers and fathers and military officials and policemen and firemen. It did not do any discrimination. It went out and destroyed every human part that it could get its hands on, just as cancer does. Cancer shows no discrimination. Cancer comes after you, and that is exactly what these terrorists have done. We need to go after this aggressively as our society feels about cancer. And cancer, as we know, to take it on, is a long-term battle, and it requires lots of resources to be able to conquer it. It is the same thing here. Do not let anybody try and justify or say that the United States somehow deserved or somehow walked into this act of terrorism, this act of barbarism. Thank goodness we have the leadership team that we have in place today, because, you see, again another analogy to cancer. It is like cancer on the brain. Our President and his team, whether it is Condoleezza Rice, whether it is Colin Powell, whether it is Donald Rumsfeld, his defense team, his team he has at the White House, realizes that when you have got cancer on the brain, you cannot blow the brain out of the body, out of the skull. You have to do very medical, very careful, very focused surgery so as to be able to go into the brain, take the cancer out of the brain, and leave the brain, as much of it intact as is possible. The White House and our government, and I am very proud of the response that our government so far has undertaken, and that is do not jump the gun; do not go out half-cocked and start blanket bombing everything. Figure out what those targets are. Pick those targets carefully and eliminate them. And do not for one moment again be convinced that anything short of eradication of that cancer is going to cure the cancer. Can you imagine going into the doctor and the doctor saying, well, we got the cancer, but we left a little of it around because we really did not want to offend the cancer. We did not want to go too deep into it. You know as well as I know that if you have got cancer and they can get access to it, you want them to cut out every last cell of that cancer. The same thing applies here. We need to cut out every last terrorist cell that we can find in this world, because if we do not, as Tony Blair said yesterday in his remarks, if we do not defeat it, referring to the terrorism, if we do not defeat it, it will defeat us. It is that simple. It is a very clear distinction to make. It is as clear as night and day. We either beat it, or it beats us. We either defeat it, or it defeats us. It is a very simple proposition. You win, or you lose. There is no halfway point, none at all. In this particular case, the winner takes it all. Remember that song by ABBA, ``the winner takes it all.'' That is exactly what we are facing here with this terrorism. If we do not beat it, it will beat us. Fortunately, the good people of this country have responded in a very strong manner, and they have shown this President and this government the support that this government feels is necessary to go out and eradicate the terrorist cells that exist, and they have expressed confidence that this administration and this government, that those of us who represent the people of this country, that we will not go out half-cocked and do things that are stupid. Now, the American people also understand that this is a battle that will take a long time. The American people understand there will be casualties. The American people understand that every action has a reaction; that when we respond and when we begin with the capabilities to eradicate either a bank account or a terrorist cell or some other type of elimination of the threat, that there may be retaliation. How can you get into a battle without the threat of retaliation? Everybody beats on their drums when you threaten to come after them. What other choice do they have? Now, I feel very strongly that the American people want us to eradicate terrorism, the kind of terrorism that is demonstrated through either eco-terrorism within our own borders or the type of terrorism we saw committed within our borders but by people outside our borders on September 11. I want to read to you a fascinating article, and I do not usually do this, read text. I like speaking without text. I rarely use notes. These are not my words that I am about to read you. These are the words of a young woman, I would guess she said when she moved to New York City she was 19, so she is somewhere I would say between 19 and 22 or 23 years old. This article was found in Newsweek, dated October 1, 2001. The October 1 edition. If you have an opportunity to buy a Newsweek, take a look at it and read this article. It is fascinating. This is a young girl, her name is Rachel Newman from New York City. I do not know her. I have never talked to her. I hope some day I have the privilege to meet her. She is about the same age as my three children. Lori's and my children are out of the home. Two of them just recently graduated from college, they are draft age. I have a 19-year-old girl in college, just about the same age as this Rachel Newman. Let me read the article to you. I know it is tough to listen to somebody who reads, especially on the floor like this. But give the meaning to the words and listen to her philosophy and what has happened to her since she personally witnessed an airplane go into one of those towers. The article is entitled ``The Day the World Changed, I Did Too.'' ``Just weeks ago, I thought of myself as a musician and a poet. Now I am calling myself a patriot. By Rachel Newman. ``I never thought listening to God Bless America would make me cry, but I guess crisis brings out parts of us we did not know existed. I have thought and felt things in the past several days that I never would have expected to. When I was 19, I moved to New York City to be a musician. The first thing I did was get a tatoo on each hand. One was of a treble cleft, the other was of an insignia for Silver Tone guitars. I did it as a reminder of my commitment to making music, but also to ensure that I would never be able to work for an establishment corporation. I did not want to devote myself to someone else's capitalistic dream. ``If you asked me to describe myself then, I would have told you I was a musician, a poet, an artist, and, on somewhat a political level, a woman, a lesbian, and a Jew. Being an American would not have made my list. It is now 3 years later, and I am a junior at a Manhattan college. ``In my gender and economics class earlier this semester, we discussed the benefits of socialism, which provides for all members of society, versus capitalism, which values the self-interests of business people. My girlfriend and I were so frustrated by the inequality in America that we discussed moving to another country. ``On September 11th, all that changed. I realized I had been taking the freedoms I have here for granted. Now I have an American flag on my backpack, I cheer at the fighter jets as they pass overhead, and I call myself a patriot. ``I had just stepped out of the shower when the first plane crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. I stood looking out the window of my Brooklyn apartment, dumbfounded as the second plane barreled into the South Tower. In that moment, the world as I had known it was redefined. ``The following Monday, my school reopened; and I headed for class. Foolishly thinking that life would `get back to normal.' When I got off the subway, the first thing I saw were photocopied posters of the missing hanging on the walls of the station. There were color pictures of men and women of every shape and size, race and religion, lying on the beach, playing with their children on the living room floor, or dancing and laughing with husbands, wives or lovers. ``Once outside, I passed store fronts covered with even more photos. When I finally reached my building, I saw a police barricade that stretched down the block and was draped with posters on both sides. After I learned that my first class had been canceled for a campus forum with the university president, I sat in the courtyard and talked with some other dazed and distraught students. It became clear to me very quickly that people were strongly antihate toward innocent Arab Americans as I was, but they were also antiwar. I am not a violent person. I usually avoid conflict of any kind. I am also not a hateful person. I try to have an open mind and to respect other people's opinion. But when I heard my fellow students saying that they did not want to fight back, despite the terrorists' direct attack on our country, I felt they were confusing revenge with justice. ``I heard my peers say things like, `This is our own fault for getting involved in everybody else's business.' And, `This is because we support Israel and we shouldn't be doing that, because they took the land from the people that it belonged to.' ``It made me angry to hear my acquaintances try to justify atrocious terrorist acts. Many of these students don't see the difference in mentality between us, the majority of the people in the world who desire peace, and them. The people who are willing to make themselves into human bombs to destroy thousands of lives. These terrorists despise our very existence. Americans have to be educated about the history of the Middle East. We can't afford to have uninformed opinions, no matter what course of action we think the United States should take. ``I am doing my part. Weeks ago, all I could think of was how to write a good rap. Now I am putting together an informational packet for students on our foreign policy towards the Middle East. ``In an ideal world, pacifism is the only answer. I am not eager to say this, but we do not live in an ideal world. I do not believe that our leaders should be callous or bomb already ravaged countries like Afghanistan. I worry that innocent citizens in that country will have a much different reaction to our fighter jets than I do. Americans may want peace, but terrorists want bloodshed. I have come to accept the idea of a focused war on terrorists as the best way to ensure our country's safety. In the words of Mother Jones, `What we need to do now is pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living.' '' That was an article by Rachel Newman, and she was 19 when she moved to New York. Obviously from the article she is now about 23 years old. I think it is one of the best pieces that I have read during my entire political career. I hope some day I have an opportunity to meet this person. I think this article is incredible, and I think it describes very accurately what is happening out there for those people who somehow think that these barbarians, that these terrorists, that this cancer is somehow justified. No matter what our beliefs are, how could we ever imagine, how could we ever believe so strongly that somebody could blindly go without discrimination and hit a tower with such fierceness that people are leaping out of the tower to their death 110 stories down below? There is a picture out there showing a couple holding hands as they leap off the building. How can we possibly look at a country as good and as strong and as wonderful as the United States of America and say that the United States of America and its people deserve this? How could we say that any country in the world deserves an act of barbarism like was carried out in this country on September 11. Now, I understand, I understand that in our Constitution, and I am proud, frankly, that our Constitution allows freedom of speech. So I do not deny anybody the right to make those statements, but they have an obligation to understand what their statements are. It is kind of like the professor in Amherst, Massachusetts, who, the night before this took place, made a big issue about Amherst was flying, that people in that town were flying their flags too often and they should be restricted from flying their American flags. Mr. Speaker, there are consequences to free speech. You can make it, but do not be upset when people question you, or when people I think who have a fundamental right to come to you and say, how do you justify that? I do not deny these people the right to make that freedom of speech, but I despise the fact that they cut our country short, that they do not realize that the people that carried out this horrible act of barbarism against our country were seeking to undermine the very right that they were exercising, that is, the right of free speech. Do we think for one moment that these people have human rights in the beliefs that they exercise? Remember, this is not the religion of Islam. Islam does not allow violence, unless you have jihad, which jihad is a description of a battle against an injustice, and even jihad has rules. Jihad requires that you not kill women and children. Jihad says, you do not destroy a soldier who does not have his weapon drawn. Jihad says that you did not destroy buildings; you do not destroy a tree that even has a green leaf on it. All of these principles were violated. This act of violence was carried out under the cloak of the Muslim population or under the cloak of the Islam-type of religion or under the Koran book, but that is all false. These people had one thing in mind: not to further the belief of Islam, not to further the needs of the Muslim people, but to destroy a society that has been a society of freedom, that has been a society of constitutional rights, the right of movement, the right to own private property, the right of equality. The second that any of us hear someone try and justify this act or somehow support the people that are behind this, take a look at how they treat women. Take a look at their record on human rights. Take a look at what other contributions, positive contributions they have made for society. Not very long ago, I heard somebody say, well, you at least have to put yourself in their shoes. They believe so deeply in their cause that when they flew those airplanes and they got in those planes, they knew they were going to give their lives in this mission to hit those towers, or to hit the Pentagon. I about fell over. Do we know what the mission of those people were, those terrorists? It was pure and simple. It was to commit suicide in order to destroy other human life, and destroy a society. They did not discriminate. They did not care whether they killed children. They did not care whether they killed mothers. They did not care whether they killed fathers. They did not care whether they killed military, cops, firemen, preachers, Muslim, fellow Muslims, fellow people of their religious beliefs. They did not care. All they wanted to do was kill people, and that was their mission. That is what they gave their life for. Now, not long after they gave their life to destroy life, there was what, 300-and-some firemen and 200-and-some police officers who ran up the stairs of those towers to meet certain death. They knew they were going to die when they went up those towers. But that was their mission, and that was their duty. What did they give their lives for? They gave their lives to save lives. They gave their lives to go up to people who were injured, who were hurt, who were scared and save their lives. So how can anybody not draw a clear distinction between wholesomeness and cancer? That is exactly what those terrorists are. They are the worst case of cancer our society has ever known. Fortunately, there is a commitment of our society, there is a commitment from governments all over this world. The coalition that our administration has put together is a strong coalition, and they have one goal in mind: to beat it. Because if we do not beat it, it is going to beat us. As I said earlier in my remarks, this is a very clear decision. In this case, the winner takes it all. We either beat it or it beats us. As Tony Blair, again, as I said earlier in my remarks, Tony Blair said so well yesterday, so well yesterday, that if we do not defeat it, it will defeat us. When we talk about defeating us, look at what America has offered to the world. There is nothing, in my opinion, to apologize for for being an American. I do not stand in front of anybody and apologize for being a citizen of the United States of America. I have no apologies for the United States of America. This country has fed more people than any other country of the history of the world; and many, many of those people are outside our borders. This country has done more for other countries, specifically including the country of Afghanistan, and other countries out there, has done more for those countries than any other country in the history of their country. This country has done more to protect the freedom of religions around this world than any other country in the history of the world. There is no other country in the history of the world that allows the types of freedom of speech, freedom of protest, freedom of assembly, freedom of private property than the United States of America. There is no country in the world that has educated more people than the United States of America. There is no country in the world that has made more contributions to the field of medicine and health care than the United States of America. There is no other country in the history of the world that has gone time and time and time again with its military might outside its borders to help its friends and allies throughout the world. Take a look the next time you are in Europe, see what kind of cemeteries are over there. Take a look at that. Those are American cemeteries over there. Those are young American men, and in today's society, they would be young American men and women, if that conflict were to occur today. We are willing to make sacrifices for the good of the world. Now, sure, some people may gripe because, well, America does not quite have it right there, and maybe we need some adjustment; but as a whole, we have nothing to apologize about. Now we face an enemy that is spread thin, that has been very effective in its first strike. Remember, they got the first hit. Now, we get to come back. But nonetheless, we have to say, they were fairly effective in the horrible, horrible harm that they did to this Nation. But this Nation will respond, and it will respond in a unified fashion. Unified not only within our borders as reflected by the poll results and so on and just going out on the street and talk about it or listen to people, as reflected by people like Rachel Newman who wrote, as I said earlier, one of the finest articles I have ever seen, but also reflected this uniformed, shoulder-to-shoulder type of attitude is reflected with countries throughout the world, whether it is our good, solid brothers and sisters in the United Kingdom, whether it is our allies in Mexico, in the country of Mexico, our neighbor to the south. By the way, an interesting thing I would like to bring up, our military recruiters, I had a couple of recruiters tell me that they are actually getting calls out of the country of Mexico, our neighbors to the south, of Mexican citizens who want to come up and join the U.S. military to fight for this country because they believe in this country. Now, that is a good neighbor. Canada to the north. I mean, face it. We are ready for the challenge. We wish we did not have the challenge, just the same as every one of us wishes we would never get cancer. But the fact is, cancer and terrorism have struck. They are both deadly. They both fit in exactly the same description, in the same bowl, and both of them need to be eradicated. This battle will be won by the United States and its allies. It will not be won by the countries that advocate, shelter, or actively participate in acts of terrorism as a cause. It will not work. Now, what are some of the things that we need to do in this country? Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things that I ask Members to keep in mind as we begin to go through. First of all, Mr. Speaker, we need to persevere in our support for the Government. That is not to say that our constituents should not have a right, and obviously they have the right, to question what we are doing. That is one of the checks and balances in our system. But we have to continue to give our support when it is appropriate; and I think it is appropriate, in a maximum capacity right now, frankly, to our administration as we carry out the type of response that is necessary to eradicate the terrorist acts or the terrorists that have done this, propounded this horrible evil upon our country. But there is another issue we have to address as the Congress of the United States: missile defense. We are absolutely being foolhardy if we think that in the future there is not going to be either an intentional or an accidental missile launch against this country. I do not believe today that Russia is going to intentionally launch a nuclear missile against the United States. I do not think that today China is going to launch a missile, a nuclear missile, intentionally against the United States. But I do believe the potential for an accidental launch out of either one of those countries could happen. If Members think the destruction by an aircraft does something, wait until they see what a nuclear weapon does. I do believe that there are countries, and do Members think for one minute if these terrorists had a nuclear weapon instead of an airplane that they would not have used that nuclear weapon? If they had that nuclear weapon, that would have been a nuclear weapon deployed in New York City, not an airplane. We have people out there who will use nuclear weapons against the United States of America, and we as the Congress have an inherent obligation, an inherent obligation to provide the maximum protection possible for our people from a nuclear missile attack. We can only do that, or a big part of what we can do rests with missile defense. Mr. Speaker, we have to get on that road. We have tremendous technology. We are almost there. We have almost got it perfected where we can stop incoming missiles into this country. We need to complete those technical studies. We need to deploy in this country a missile defense system. That is critical. So we talked about a couple of things: one, our perseverance as citizens of this country; two, our support for the administration and our military that is out there; then, our need for a missile defense system. Now, let me talk about the final issue that I think is critical, and that is, we have to put some of this political correctness aside and we have to talk about the problem at our borders. The fact is, our borders are disorganized, and there are a lot of people who wish harm on this country that are crossing it. In fact, some are probably crossing it as we now speak. I was told by my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), that there are 250,000 deportation orders out there for people who are in this country now illegally, and they have never even been served. No effort has been made to take these out and get these people out of this country. Our borders are loose, and the follow-through, not just on the perimeter of the United States but once these people get in, for example, on student visas, we have a huge problem with student visas. What is happening is that a lot of people who get a student visa, which requires one to go to school, they never show up to school. They use that as their passport, the price of admission to get within our borders. Then they melt into society and nobody pursues them. Nobody goes after them. We have to tighten our borders. I am not saying tighten the borders as to change the history of our country, which welcomes immigration. Our country was built and the greatness of this country was built on immigration. But we have gotten very, very sloppy; and we have an obligation to the people of this country to regulate and to tighten up this ship. We have to get it back in shape. Those borders are demanding attention today. The resources I believe that are necessary will be appropriated by this Congress, but we have to get out of this era of being politically correct. It is not politically correct, for example, to ask a person too much about their private life, kind of like it used to be. Maybe it is not politically correct to have them go through your underwear when they look at your suitcase at the airport. Some of these days have gone by. We have to become more realistic. We have to look with a realistic eye, not an idealistic eye but a realistic eye, as to what the threats are and what we need to do, while protecting and respecting the civil liberties granted to us under our Constitution. I am confident that we can do it; that as a people, as a people, the response we will have as a result of September 11 will in the long run be positive for the entire world. We will represent the Statue of Liberty proudly as she looks out over those waters. It is an obligation. It is an inherent responsibility of myself and every one of the Members in this Chamber to carry forward this country and the greatness that our forefathers have done. I have no doubt that we will do it.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to pass some comments on to a former employee, a former reporter here, who is facing some trying times as he sits in the hospital, Bob Cochran. Bob's son works here in the House. Bob, while I cannot speak to the TV audience, I know that if he were here today, all my colleagues would go up, pat him on the back and wish him our very best. He set a good record while he was here. Once again, he faces another challenge. I am sure that he will be successful. This evening, Mr. Speaker, I want to visit with my colleagues at length about the Nation's security. Obviously that is the issue on everyone's mind since September 11 and the tragedy that we all witnessed on TV. There are a number of issues that I want to visit with Members about this evening. One of them is the description of the events and the battle that we face, given by even Tony Blair today or Rudy Giuliani yesterday when he spoke to the United Nations, the first time a mayor of New York City has spoken to the United Nations in I do not know how many years. And our brothers in thought and our brothers in capitalism and our brothers in democracy, the United Kingdom and Tony Blair and his speech and his remarks this evening, I want to go over a few of those remarks because I think they are very pertinent. My analogy of the situation, of the challenge that we face, that our President is so ably leading us through at this time, is a battle that you can figure like it is against a cancer. You know that that cancer is there. We know the viciousness of cancer. I can tell you that some people, as time goes on, some people in our country are saying that, well, this is a perfect example, a perfect time for us to turn the other cheek, for us to kiss and make up, and to pretend that that cancer, that you do not have to eradicate it off your arm or eradicate it from your body, that you can love it off your body, that you can pray it off your body. I have no doubt, I am a Christian, I strongly believe in a supreme being, but I believe that our supreme being expects us to have some self-help, that our supreme being does not think that we think that we can discover a horrible cancer on our body and pray it off, or wish that it was not there and somehow it is going to disappear on its own. Or pat it with your hand and think that that cancer is going to turn friendly. Do not be mistaken. I do not think anybody on this floor is. I hope you are not. But do not be mistaken. This bin Laden is the most vicious cancer that you have ever encountered. It is not a cancer that you can negotiate. The President of this country has made it very clear we will not negotiate with this cancer. It is a cancer that you have no choice but to eradicate, because if you do not, it will be a battle you wish you would not have lost. We cannot, as an American Nation, we cannot as a free world, any country in this free world, afford to lose this battle. Do not be taken in by some of the peace protesters across the country who interestingly enough in this country have the right to protest and they are protesting against the action that we should take against bin Laden because of the viciousness that it may involve. This is against bin Laden, whose very strike at the center of America was not to take American lives. That is not the intent of this cancer that is trying striking us. The intent of that cancer that is striking us, the intent of bin Laden and his followers out there, is to destroy a nation, to see the United States and all countries of democracy buckle at the knees, to take them down, as communism was taken down in Russia. That is what their goal is. These protestors, who are so strong in their thought, ought to take just a moment to see how bin Laden and his followers treat women, for example, what they think about human rights, what they think about homosexuality, what they think about the ethnic issues and the all-men- are-created-equal type of philosophy. Take a look at the prevalence of class structure, of which bin Laden came from, and which bin Laden rules. It defies everything that these peace protestors believe in. What he is seeking to do is to destroy the constitutional right that our country allows for people to have the freedom of speech, for people to go out and protest. But yet their vision seems to be shortsighted. Then there are those who I have seen in the last few days who say, well, somehow we can love this thing off, or we can pray this thing away. Look, we need all the prayers we can get and it will be a strong element of our success, and we need all the love we can gather throughout the world. There is no question about that. In fact, our country has given more foreign aid to Afghanistan than any country in the history of Afghanistan. Our country, of any country in the world, believes in the warmth and the prayer and the need to help other people not so privileged. But that is not what this is about. This is about a horrible cancer that has attacked everybody in the free world; and, if we are not successful, then logically it will be successful. Think about the last time you ever saw anybody say that they wanted cancer to be successful. Think about the last time you ever saw anybody that did not want us to have a battle against cancer be successful. We support cancer research through this country strongly; and, I am telling you, the battle we face now is as threatening to our society as cancer is to the human body. I want to read a little from Tony Blair, some of the comments he made in his speech today. I think it is very appropriate. Let me just read just a couple of quotes. Again, I am quoting from Tony Blair. ``There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of the minds, no point of understanding with such terror.'' Think of the words that Tony Blair said today. Let me repeat them. ``There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of the minds, no point of understanding with such terror. There is just one choice.'' And if there were any words I have heard, with the exception of the President's speech given right here on this House floor, these words would come in right behind it. ``Defeat it, or be defeated by it.'' ``Defeat it, or be defeated by it.'' And defeat it we must. That is exactly what Tony Blair said today. If we do not beat it, it is going to beat us, and the results of it defeating us will be the end of the free world as we know it; the end of democracy, the end of the dreams of the multiple generations, the multiple generations in this country that built this country to the physical strength and to the moral strength that it has, and to the success that this country has. All of that, all of that success, all of that compassion, all of that love, all of that that our predecessors by the hundreds of thousands have laid their lives down for, all of that will be nil if we lose this battle. And that is what Tony Blair says. He says there is no negotiation. He said, my analysis, you cannot negotiate with cancer. You cannot look at the cancer on your body and say I want to negotiate with it. It has no love, it has no compassion. It only has one goal. Cancer's goal is to destroy your body. That is all it is there for. It is not there to assist your body, it is not there to make your body better, it is not to make your body healthier in some manner. Cancer is in your body for one purpose, and that is to destroy your body, and its ultimate goal is death of the human body. That is exactly what bin Laden and his radical followers are. I think our President was very careful, as are the national leaders, and thank goodness we have George W. Bush, and we have people like Colin Powell, or Condoleezza Rice, or Donald Rumsfeld, and I could go right on down the list, that are leading our country. They have been very careful to distinguish, as have many of my colleagues here on the floor, they have been very careful to distinguish that this is not the religion of Islam, that this is not the belief of Islam. Islam does not have in the Koran or anywhere else the destruction of democracy. It is not the belief of the majority of the Muslim population. It certainly is not the belief of the Muslim population that resides as American citizens who are American citizens who have a Muslim background. One of my close friends is Muslim, he and his family, Dr. Malik and Seme Hassen, Pueblo, Colorado. The other day, I saw, and if Members have an opportunity, the Discovery Channel gave us a tape last week for our personal viewing, and the tape is titled ``Behind the Terror, Understanding the Enemy.'' ``Behind the Terror, Understanding the Enemy.'' If Members have not seen that, they ought to get their constituents together and ought to watch that jointly. It is a 2-hour tape. It is a wonderful production by Discovery. ``Behind the Terror, Understanding the Enemy.'' You will understand the background of what we are talking about. That 2-hour film will give one the equivalent of 1 year of education in a university, in my opinion. It is outstanding. To go back to my friend, Dr. Hassen and his wife, Seme, I invited them last week to come and sit down with other citizens in Pueblo, their fellow citizens, fellow Americans, and watch this film. Then, after the film, I asked Dr. Hassen and his wife Seme to stand up and give their point of view. I will tell you, I was so proud to listen to these people. The patriotism, the sense of belief in this country and what this country offers, is intense. So our President's thoughts and our President's words, as well as the words of others, whether it is Condoleezza Rice or Tony Blair or any of the world's leaders, is the very careful distinction between the Muslim population, the majority of the Muslim population, and these radical cancers that we are now dealing with. Mr. Speaker, let me go on and talk just for a moment about Mayor Giuliani's comments, which I thought were just wonderful. He gave them yesterday at the United Nations. Many of the people, I think, across the country did not get an opportunity to hear the Mayor speak to the United Nations. I am not sure all Members were able to watch it. I thought it was fabulous, and I want to repeat just a few things that the Mayor said. No Mayor in the history of this country has faced the challenges that Mayor Giuliani has faced and the people of New York City have faced, and they have risen to the challenge. ``They have suffered a horrible, horrible blow; a horrible blow to the persons of New York, a horrible blow to the infrastructure of New York, a horrible blow to the moral senses of every citizen, to the citizens of New York City.'' This is what the Mayor said. These are excerpts from Giuliani's speech to the United Nations. ``Indeed, this vicious attack places in jeopardy the whole purpose of the United Nations.'' So the Mayor talks about the United Nations. What is the purpose of the United Nations? Many of us in these Chambers have questioned the United Nations, when really put to a test, can the United Nations stand up to it? Is the United Nations really a body that really truly will bring together a united solution? Or will they back down at the moment of the test? Mayor Giuliani's remarks, ``Indeed, this vicious attack places in jeopardy the whole purpose of the United Nations.'' And he goes on. ``The United Nations must hold accountable any country that supports or condones terrorism. Otherwise, you will fail in your primary mission as a peacekeeper.'' Let me repeat that. ``The United Nations must hold accountable.'' It is not should hold accountable. It is not a negotiable process. The Mayor says that the United Nations must, no choice, must hold accountable any country that supports or condones terrorism. Any country, any individual. ``Otherwise, you will fail in your primary mission as a peacekeeper, which is exactly what the primary mission of the United Nations is.'' He says, ``It must ostracize any nation that supports terrorism. Now, that is a test for the United Nations. It must isolate any nation that remains neutral in the fight against terrorism. Now is the time, in the words of your charter, the United Nations charter, to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.'' So the Mayor has said to the United Nations, now is your time, now is the time; the challenge is here today. This is not a time for further study or vague directives. Many of us on this floor have debated extensively about how many more directives or how many more studies does the United Nations need before the United Nations does something. It is a collective body of nations throughout the world, but at some point the United Nations needs to make decisions, and now could be the finest hour of the United Nations, or the worst failure of the United Nations, to see how exactly they address September 11, 2001. Let me go on with Mayor Giuliani's remarks. ``The evidence of terrorism's brutality and inhumanity, of its contempt for life and the concept of peace, of its contempt for life and of the concept of peace, is lying beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center, less than 2 miles from where we meet today.'' He could not have said it any better. For those people who are protesting our fight against this cancer, keep in mind, you ought to go visit that site of rubble. You ought to keep in mind what evidence is still, as we speak this hour, what evidence is still trying to be recovered, to return to the thousands, not the few families, but the thousands of fellow Americans, which include not just fellow Americans, but 80 separate countries throughout this world and every type of ethnic background you can imagine, including Muslims, that were destroyed and now lay in a pile of rubbish called evidence. Mayor Giuliani goes on. ``Look at that destruction; that massive, senseless, cruel loss of human life. And then I ask you to look in your hearts and recognize that there is no room for neutrality on the issue of terrorism. There is no room for the issue of neutrality on the issue of terrorism. You are either with civilization or with terrorists. On one side is democracy, the rule of law and the respect for human life,'' Giuliani says. ``On the other side is tyranny, arbitrary executions and mass murder. Mass murder.'' We are right, and they are wrong. That is exactly what Giuliani says. We are right, and they are wrong. No shoulds, no question of deliberation by a jury. It is clear who is right and who is wrong. Mayor Giuliani says it very well. Let me repeat what Mayor Giuliani says. ``We are right, and they are wrong. It is as simple as that. And by that I mean that America and its allies are right about democracy, about religious, political and economic freedom, and the terrorists are wrong, in fact, evil, in their mass destruction of human life in the name of addressing alleged injustices.'' That paragraph says just about all of it that needs to be said. Let me continue. ``Let those who say that we must understand the reasons of terrorism, come with me.'' Listen to this. All of you out there willing so quickly to carry up a sign and call America a bully, that say in some way America probably had this coming, that America does not understand these so-called freedom fighters. They are not freedom fighters. They are cancer. That is exactly what they are. Listen to this paragraph by the Mayor of New York City. ``Let those who say that we must understand, let those who say that we must understand the reasons for terrorism come with me to the thousands of funerals, the thousands of funerals we are having in New York City, thousands, and explain those insane maniacal reasons to the children who will grow up without fathers and mothers, and to the parents who have had their children ripped from them for no reason at all.'' So we can see that Giuliani, the Mayor of New York City, in his address to the United Nations yesterday, and to Tony Blair in his remarks today, we have people who stand strong; and we have people who are willing to say, it is as clear as night and day. There is no question who is right, and there is no question who is wrong. That is what Mayor Giuliani said. The evidence lays 2 miles, less than 2 miles from the United Nations building, from where he gave that speech. I commend the Mayor, all of us commend the Mayor for his actions in New York City; but I commend the Mayor for having the guts and the gumption to show up in front of the United Nations and lay it on the line. This is not something that we negotiate, as the President has very ably said. It is nonnegotiable. It is a cancer. We do not negotiate with cancer. We need to eradicate cancer. To my left, we could put the word ``cancer'' right across the top of this. Our Nation's security is an imperative requirement for those of us who have responsibilities of leadership, not only to our generation, but for the future generations of this country. The test of our leadership is here today. The test of our will and the strength of our beliefs are being challenged today by a horrible cancer. Can we and will we rise against this, even though it requires patience? It is not an easy battle, and nobody out there believes it is an easy battle. We were not able to destroy a country. This, we do not believe, was sanctioned by a country, although it appears that Afghanistan is going to continue to shelter the terrorists; and as the President, and I think the belief of the American people have said to that Taliban regime over there, look, you cannot cooperate with this cancer. You have to get out of the way. Our focus is to get the cancer, and if we find you are a contributing cause to the cancer, you need to be eliminated. There is no question about it. If you are not a contributing cause to the cancer, get out of the way so that we can take on the cancer. If you are a contributing cause to the cancer, it must be eliminated; and that is exactly the message. In our time today, I say to my colleagues, it is perhaps in our career the one deciding point of how well we can exert leadership and our responsibilities as Congressmen of the United States of America. There are several different issues that we need to be concerned about for the security of this country. One of them that I found very interesting in the last couple of days, just some recommendations I think we should take a look at. The Feinstein proposal, Senator Feinstein. Let me just give the background. She has mentioned, she said, there is no question we have to look at our immigration laws. Our borders are too loose. There has been a lot of focus on our borders. Take a look at what is happening at the borders. What can we do to improve the borders? Well, we also have to take a look, because we have a big problem once people get inside our borders. What kind of enforcement do we have across this country? My understanding is that the INS has about 2,500 agents for the interior of the United States, for our homeland; and that is what we are talking about. How do we defend the homeland? We have to assume that people will get by those borders, on legitimate reasons perhaps and then turn to illegitimate purposes, or get by those borders through illegitimate means and then they get into the center of the homeland. We have to provide the INS with the type of resources to have a homeland defense against those who violate some of the most liberal immigration laws in the world. Our country stands proud on its open arms to immigrants. Most of us were beneficiaries of that policy. But it does not mean that we should shirk our responsibility or look the other way at the problems that we have with the immigration policies that are in place. Senator Feinstein, through her proposal, the Feinstein proposal, urges major changes in the United States visa program. This proposal has found its time. These student visas, let me give a little background. This is from the proposal. One of the suicide pilots of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, had enrolled in an Oakland, California, college in November 2000 for an English language course, but never showed up. Mr. Speaker, when a foreigner gets a student visa, they are required, once they get the visa, to go to school; or obviously, they are not using the student visa to go to school, they are using it just to gain access to the country. That is what appeared to happen here. Investigators are also examining whether or not three others, also believed to be involved in the hijacking of Flight 77, attended a community college in San Diego. Officials estimate that 245,000, 245,000 foreign students have entered the United States this year to pursue a course of study. Between 1999 and 2000, in other words, in a 1-year period of time, the State Department issued 3,370 visas to students from nations on the United States Terrorism Watch List. In other words, the United States keeps a watch list of countries we consider that harbor or otherwise condone terrorism; and from those States, we allow almost 4,000 students to come to college in the finest universities in the world here in the United States. What are we? Did we just hit our head falling out of a swing? I mean not even the civil libertarians can defend that kind of policy. We have a right to accept students, and we have a right to say no to students; and if we have students who are coming from a regime who have harbored terrorism, in my opinion, that should stop immediately. There should not be one more student, not one more student visa issued to a country on this Nation's terrorism list, not one. And that statement goes further than the Feinstein proposal. The Feinstein proposal, as I have read it, does not say that. I have said that. I do not think that the United States of America has to give one inch, has to give one inch to any country or any regime in the world that harbors or condones terrorism and allows their young people to come to our Nation for their education. We should not do it. We do not have to do it. It is not a question of being politically correct or not. In fact, being politically correct would say that our primary concern ought to be the national security, the security for our homeland. It is not being racial or racist by any definition of the word. It simply is saying, look, it is logical, it is common sense. Do not educate the young people in our own country or countries that condone terrorism against our country. Do not take in the enemy's children to educate them and turn them against ourselves. It does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, let me continue on with the Feinstein proposal. In 1996, Congress approved a Federal law to require the INS to electronically collect data on all international students by 2003; but to date, the system has not yet been set up. They have no funding. It is section 110; it is under the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Zero funding for it. It is not and should not be considered ``politically incorrect'' to talk about the immigration policies of this Nation. What more of a wake-up sound do we need? What kind of an alarm do we need to sound before we start to look at these issues; and the student visas are an excellent place to start, a good place to start. So I think that the Feinstein proposal is something that this Congress ought to look at immediately. I want to move on to something else that I think is absolutely critical. I want to talk to my colleagues about missile defense. I am appalled that since the September 11 tragedy, that some people have addressed missile defense as something that is not necessary. If ever there was an example of a need to defend the homeland, that September 11 displayed to us that this time it was an airplane, next time it could be a biological weapon or it could be a missile. I will tell my colleagues something else that people are not thinking about. We not only in this country have zero defense against incoming missiles to this country; but we do not have any defense, not just a missile that is intentionally launched against this country. We frankly do not have a defense against a missile launched against this country by accident. Think about it. Everybody that talks about missile defense puts it in the context of an intentionally launched attack against the United States. I think that that is a high possibility at some point in the future, and I think we have an inherent obligation as Congressmen to defend this country, to defend the homeland, to give us homeland security against a missile defense. But we also need to broaden our thoughts and think about what would happen if Russia, for example, by accident, not intentionally, but through carelessness or through negligence or by accident, launched a missile against the United States and we do not have a missile defense system to stop it. Would that, because a country, which we could establish was a country, not a terrorist, but a country, fires a missile accidentally, and it hits a major city, and we know what kind of damage a nuclear weapon would do, it would make September 11 look kind of small compared to the damage that a nuclear weapon would do. What do we do, start a war? Every peace advocate in America ought to be some of the strongest proponents in America for missile defense. Why? Because missile defense could help us avoid a future war. Think about that accidental launch as I go through my remarks. Obviously, what we have to think about is preemptive defense. How do we preempt the challenge that faces us out there? Now, we know, for example, NORAD located in Colorado Springs, we have thought well enough into the future, and our forefathers had the foresight to say we need to have a detection system. We need to detect where the enemy moves around. We need to detect when people who do not have the best interests of this Nation in mind, we need to be able to detect what they are up to. And if they launch aircraft against us, if they launch a balloon against us, a hot air balloon, if they launch a missile against us, we need to track it. We need to have the capability to pick it up very early. Mr. Speaker, we did that, and NORAD, which is a joint operation with our good neighbors to the north, Canada, put together a system that has incredible detection. We have through this system that we have, that is in place today, we have the capabilities to pick up a missile launch anywhere in the world. We can, within seconds, tell where its target is, we can tell the speed of the missile, we can tell with pretty high probability what the speed of the missile is, whether it has multiple warheads on it; but much beyond that, we cannot do anything else. A lot of citizens out there today are asking questions: How do we defend ourselves? What do we actually have in our arsenal for homeland defense, for national security? Mr. Speaker, we do not have anything for missile defense. Our President, before September 11, one of the issues that he campaigned on and one of the issues that he has followed through on and has been very aggressive about is that we as a Congress, he as a President, and this Nation as a Nation has the responsibility for future generations to preempt missile attacks against the United States of America. Probability of events. I have two things listed on this poster. One of them, of course, as we look to my left is the intentional launch. Obviously, at some point in the future, now, people, it could be realistic that a nuclear missile would be launched against this country. Do we think that bin Laden or those terrorists who committed this terrible act, do we think that if they would have had a nuclear weapon in their hands that they would have thought twice about using it? If they would have had the capability to deliver a missile into this country, that would not have been an airline that hit those towers, that would have been a missile that hit those towers, in my opinion. The only thing that stopped those people from using a nuclear missile or a nuclear weapon is they did not have it. It was not because, by the way, we would stop it, because it is pretty well known we have no capabilities to stop it. We have the technology that has very rapidly progressed to the point where we think we can develop within this country, in a few short years, a very effective missile defense system. We need to do that. We need to do it today. The time is here, it is now, for a missile defense system. As I said earlier, again to my left, not necessarily an intentional launch, but take a look about an accidental launch. What if somebody accidentally launched against this country? If we had the capability to stop an accidentally-launched missile as it began to head for this country, if we had the capability to stop it, we may very well have averted a major, major conflict, the likes of which history has never seen. But if we do not have the capability to stop that missile, what do we do? What do we do if a country accidentally launched a nuclear missile into a major city in the United States, and we lost hundreds of thousands of people? We would feel pretty horrible that we did not take the opportunity we have today to put a missile defense system into place. We would feel pretty horrible that we did not take the time and the money that we have to continue to develop the technology to perfect defense for the United States of America for security for our homeland. I wanted to point out a few things here, that the terrorist attack of September 11, the terrorist attack of September 11, confirms the growing need for a missile defense. Homeland defense is insufficient without missile defense. I have heard people say in the last few days, we need to be biologically prepared to fight a biological attack. We need to be prepared to tighten up our airport security so we do not ever see a repeat of what happened on September 11. We have to be prepared for other types of attacks. Let me tell the Members, one of them that to me is the most dangerous threat for future generations, and frankly, for our generation, but as more countries develop and acquire nuclear weapons, our threat, one of our major threats, not the only threat, and I am not taking anything away from airport security, obviously, I am not taking anything away from biological defense for homeland security, but I am saying, put into that formula a missile defense system, or we will live, I think, I truly believe that my generation will live to see the day that we regretted back in the early part of the 2000's not putting a missile defense system in order. While systems are in place to thwart terrorism, the Nation still has no defense, and I stress the word ``no,'' the Nation has no defense against missile attack. Missile attacks will be far more destructive than the September 11 assaults. I do not think anybody questions that. Terrorist groups, not just states but terrorist groups, have the means to buy ballistic missiles. Missile defenses are needed to shield the United States from retaliation, should it take action against terrorist-harboring states. Look at that last point. Missile defenses are necessary. If the United States decides to take action against a country that is harboring or condoning terrorism, or actively engaged in terrorism against the United States, one of the critical elements of our offense against terrorism is the ability to defend our Nation from missile attacks that might come back as retaliation. Those are very, very key elements. The red is nuclear proliferation, nuclear proliferation. That is the red right now. Right now that is what we have. Countries of nuclear proliferation concern, that is the green. I say to my colleagues, take a look at this map today in 2001, a month after the worst disaster this country has ever suffered. Take a look at this map. If we do not do something about it, if we do not defend against it, take a look at how threatening this map will be just in 10 years. See what happens to these colors, and see how widely they spread throughout the world if we do not take decisive action in the period of time that we now have the opportunity to take decisive action. We have a little gap in there. We have a window of opportunity to develop this missile defensive system. Right now the countries that would intentionally launch against the United States I do not believe would engage in that kind of conduct within the near future. I do, however, believe, and I think every one of my colleagues would agree with me, that today every country in the world that has nuclear missile capability also has the capability, frankly, to screw up, to fire a missile by mistake. If that missile comes to the United States, we have an obligation, we have a need for the American people to defend against it. We have this short window of opportunity, a few short years here before this red spreads throughout the world to provide us, to provide Canada, to provide any of our allies or any of our friends defense against missile attack. Watch this map. Mark this map. A few years from now, a few years from now, take a look at it. By God, if we as a collective body have not, 10 years from now, provided this Nation with a missile defense system, we will have been grossly derelict in our duties. We will have been grossly derelict in our responsibilities for the future survivability of this Nation. That is how much weight I put on this decision to defend against accidental or intentional launches against the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, ballistic missile proliferation. I just showed Members what was happening with the nuclear spread throughout the world. Now take a look at what has happened with regard to proliferation with regard to ballistic missile capabilities. This is a very, very important chart. This indicates very clearly that when the antiballistic missile treaty was signed, for example, there were two countries in this world capable of attacking each other with nuclear missiles. It was Russia and the United States. But today, look how this has changed, ballistic missile proliferation. Look at the purple throughout this map. Countries possessing ballistic missiles. Let me just give some examples. There are Iran. Heard that name lately? There is Iraq, India, Hungary, Libya, Pakistan, Poland, Rumania, Syria, Taiwan, South Africa, Slovakia, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, Vietnam, Algeria, Argentina, Bulgaria, Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, the capability of nations in this world to develop and to deliver a ballistic missile threat to the United States is no longer a threat in somebody's imagination, it is reality. It is there that we have a demand upon our authority and our power to protect this country to stand up and protect against ballistic missiles, either accidental or intentional, against this country. When we talk about ballistic missiles, when we talk about missile defense in this country, we obviously have to discuss the treaties that have some type of oversight on missile defense of a particular country. There is only one big treaty out there. It is called the ABM treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Now, some people have said that we cannot break or we cannot abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, that we are walking away, that we are breaching a treaty, that we have broken a treaty, in one of the few times, outside of the Native Americans, one of the few times in international relations the United States has broken a treaty. That is not the case we face. That is not what the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty says. I will go into some detail here in just a minute. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty obviously has a historical story to it. Let us look at that story. Back 30, 40 years ago, Russia and the United States were worried about Russia and the United States. They were not worried about Pakistan or India or Romania or Slovakia. They were not worried about any of these countries, they were worried about the nuclear capabilities of each other. So the United States and Russia sat down at a table and said, ``Let us negotiate some type of agreement to minimize the risk of us attacking each other.'' Remember, at that point in time, there was no other Nation in the world, no other Nation in the world that had the capability to deliver a ballistic missile onto the U.S. mainland or onto Russia with a nuclear warhead. Only two countries had it. So they sat down at that time and they came up with a theory. ``Look,'' the United States says to Russia, and vice versa, Russia says to the United States, ``Let us sign an agreement that will not allow either one of us to defend against the other's missiles.'' Now, that sounds perfectly illogical. I think today it is absolutely crazy. But back then, there were some who thought, hey, that is logical. We will not attack because we are afraid of the retaliation. Since we cannot protect ourselves from the retaliation, the incentive to attack is taken away. That is the fundamental theory upon which this treaty was drafted. But when they drafted this treaty, both the Russian negotiators and the American negotiators had enough foresight to say, ``Look, treaties protect what is in effect today, as far as we can see into the future, but both countries must have the allowance or the flexibility under this treaty and under the terms of this treaty that if things change in our society, that there is a way to modify or to terminate the agreement.'' So when people tell us the only way we can provide a missile defense is to breach a treaty, they are patently false. It is false on its face, that type of statement. In fact, the treaty itself allows for withdrawal from the treaty. Let us go over the critical language here that would allow us to withdraw from this treaty. Article 15 of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, again, the ABM, ``This treaty shall be of unlimited duration. However, each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw.'' So this is a right contained within the treaty. It is a right, a treaty right. We are not breaching it, we are exercising a right. ``Each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other party 6 months prior to the withdrawal from the treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.'' September 11 was a horrible, extraordinary event. That, true, was not caused by a missile, or a missile as we define it. It actually turned an airline into a missile. But the fact is, we have now discovered, unfortunately, we have been rudely awakened to the fact that attacks like this are no longer happening in other countries. It is not terrorist acts that we read in the morning papers or see on the morning TV being committed in the Middle East, it is in the center of our homeland. It is in New York City. It is through the expense of 6,000 or 7,000 lives that we have now learned that extraordinary and terrible and horrible events can occur within the borders of our country. It should enhance the determination of every one of my colleagues, every one of us on this floor, that we need to defend against every possible tool of murder that we see existing out there, whether it is by another country or by terrorists. This treaty prevents us from having a missile defense system unless we can show that an extraordinary event has occurred. Let me give an example of the extraordinary events. Obviously, September 11, 2001, was a horrible, horrible tragedy and an extraordinary event. But let us look at other extraordinary events. Remember the graph I just showed a few minutes ago of the proliferation of ballistic missiles throughout this world? That is an extraordinary event. It is a high-risk event. When this treaty was drafted, nobody ever imagined that the ballistic missile would be found in all of those countries. Remember the chart I showed before that chart about the proliferation of countries that now possess nuclear capabilities? No one ever imagined when this treaty was drafted that anyone other than Russia and the United States would have nuclear capabilities. Those are extraordinary events. Those are the kind of events that the negotiators for both Russia and the United States realized there had to be a right contained within the four corners of the treaty that would provide for a country, for its national sovereignty, would provide for that country to provide homeland or national security. So the treaty itself allows us, contains a right for us to walk away from it if, in fact, extraordinary events have taken place, and I have shown to you that these kind of events have taken place, that our Nation now needs to focus and refocus lots of energy, lots of resources at homeland security. On that list, towards the very top of that list, ought to be a missile defense system. Let me summarize, go back to some of the comments that I think are so critical this evening for us to talk about. First of all, I think it was a very meaningful speech that Mayor Giuliani gave to the United Nations yesterday. Mayor Giuliani laid it on the line. He in essence said to the United Nations: today is your test. Today, your ultimate and your whole reason for being peacekeepers is being tested. You cannot remain neutral, United Nations, on this issue. You need to come forward. This is not a negotiable type of event. This is a horrible, tragic event, as the Mayor said, with the evidence buried less than two miles from the United Nations. As Tony Blair said today in his remarks which were probably next to President Bush's remarks and Giuliani, those three speeches I think will probably go down as three of the finest speeches given in a warlike situation like we have faced and like we face today, and what Tony Blair said is you must defeat it or it will defeat you. Think about it. You must defeat it or it will defeat you. Think of it like a cancer, and that is exactly what terrorism is. Terrorism is a horrible, horrible cancer. You do not negotiate with cancer. You have to kill cancer. You have to eradicate cancer. It is not negotiable. Cancer does not listen to you. Cancer does not care about your children. Cancer does not care about your future life. Cancer does not care about your youth. Cancer only cares about one thing, and that is, the destruction of the human body. And terrorism is exactly the same thing. It does not care. Do you think those terrorists cared about the widows or cared about the children whose parents are gone forever, who cared about the parents whose children are gone forever? You think they cared at all about those people that Time magazine or some of these others have pictures of them intentionally jumping off the World Trade Centers, including one couple that is holding hands as they fall? You think those terrorists cared about that? You think those terrorists cared one iota about the passengers on those airplanes? You differentiate for me between a terrorist and evilness of cancer. There is no difference, and nations throughout the world today must make that choice. As said by President Bush, as said by Tony Blair, as said by Mayor Giuliani of New York City, the choice must be made. There is no neutral territory here. No, none, zero, zip. It is nonnegotiable. You either defeat it or it defeats you. I say with due respect to those people who are saying, including some college professors around this country, who are saying that, gosh, the United States has got it coming, because of our bullying, our foreign affairs. Keep in mind, no country in the world, no country in the history of the world has done for its neighbors or for people with less good fortune what the United States of America has done. No country in the world has educated as many students from all countries as America has done. No country in the world has guaranteed in its Constitution, and judiciously followed its Constitution, the rights and civil liberties that America has for its citizens. No country in the world has seen the economic power that the United States has developed through capitalism. No country in the world has taken its military might to help its allies as often as the United States of America has done. No country in the history of the world has allowed the thousands and thousands of its citizens to give their lives for the defense of a country clear across an ocean like America has done. No country in the world has done for medical research what America has done. No country in the world has helped Afghanistan as America has done. No country in the world allows immigrants from all parts of the world to come in in an orderly fashion and be able to become Americans and be able to live the American dream. We have a lot of good things about this country, and of interest, Dr. Hassan said the other day, after we had this town meeting in Pueblo Colorado, Dr. Hassan said, we need to continue to put the message out there. We need to tell people what America is about and how good America is and what fine people America has, and he used an example. He says, you hear people talked about these terrorists and how dare they say something like freedom fighters. Remember what those terrorists did. In some of the writings that you have seen since that horrible day 3 weeks ago, you have seen people say, well, these people were so devoted to their cause that they gave their lives; these terrorists were on a suicidal mission because they were so devoted to their cause. What was their cause? Their cause was to bring down the free world. Their cause was to destroy democracy. Their cause was to destroy human rights. Their cause was to destroy the rights of women or the rights of any ethnic race. Their cause was to destroy a society that recognizes the value of its population. As my friend Dr. Hassan said, remember, they were in an airplane and they gave their lives for one reason, to take other lives, to destroy a nation. Not long after, those terrorists committed suicide in these terrible things they did. But add 300 some New York City firemen and 200 or 300 some New York City police officers who ran into those towers, ran up those towers on what they had to know was a certain death. They knew when they went up those towers they would probably never see their children again, they would probably die a horrible death. And, unfortunately, they did. But when they were running up those towers, giving their lives, they went up those towers to save lives, to save a Nation. And that ought to distinguish pretty clearly the kind of cancer that our President is so capably leading our country towards eliminating. Now, we have to be patient in our upcoming battle. It will be kind of like a cat on the hunt for a mouse. A cat will sit there patiently and the mouse may go by and the mouse may come back by, but until that mouse is in exactly the right spot, the cat will not strike. And that is what we have to do. We have no gripe with the Muslim population. We have only a gripe with the cancer that has penetrated that population and penetrated our population. It is like delicate brain surgery. We do not want to blast the entire brain out of the human head. We do not want to go off half-cocked, and our President is showing us he is not doing it this way. We need to go in very methodically and focused and take that cancer out of that human body. And that is the mission of every one of us on this House floor. And that is what the American people expect of us, what all the world's democracies expect. In fact, it is what the entire world expects of us, nothing less.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor and applaud Officer Bob Holder who resides in Trinidad, Colorado. Officer Holder has recently been named the North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association's Officer of the Year. I am proud that Colorado has been so solidly represented by an individual committed both to his work and the community where he has established his life and career. Bob Holder has spent over twenty-six years with the Division of Wildlife and Management in Trinidad, Colorado. During this time, Bob has gone above and beyond his call of duty working not only as a wildlife officer, but also as an educator and mentor to the local community. Additionally, Officer Holder's communication skills and commitment to the people of Colorado helped to maintain a working relationship between landowners, land users and the Division of Wildlife and Management. These accomplishments, along with a distinguished resume of service to the State of Colorado, made Officer Holder's name stand out when being considered for recognition by the North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association. This association designated Bob out of nearly 8,000 wildlife officers from across both the United States and Canada. Mr. Speaker, Officer Holder has been a dedicated public servant to the State of Colorado. It is with great pleasure that I publicly recognize his achievements and offer my congratulations and warmest regards to Officer Bob Holder.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we do not realize what we have until it is gone, and human life is no exception. The service of our law enforcement officers is another aspect that we often forget, but on October 1, 2001, our hearts and minds were struck with a stark reminder that our officers of the peace are as vulnerable as any they seek to protect from those that wish to inflict harm on others. Jason Schwartz, a 26-year old Fremont County Sheriff's Deputy, was mercilessly shot in his car after apprehending Michael and Joel Stovall in Canon City, Colorado. I would like to take a few moments to raise the service and life of this gracious young man to the attention of this body and offer our sympathies to his family and friends at this time. While we may not ever fully understand the reasons why this event ever happened, we must allow our hearts to be filled with the joy that Jason brought to us while he was with us. Jason was a strong and dependable leader who was just beginning a long career as a sheriff's officer. Everyday he demonstrated his charisma and enthusiasm for his job and it was evident in all he did. His colleagues as well as members of the community respected Jason. His presence was a shining star for many to emulate. Jason's one month-old son, Mason, and his wife Sheryl live to remember the honorable service he offered the people of Fremont County. Words simply cannot begin to express the admiration, the appreciation and the solemnity that we all have at this time of remembrance and mourning. Mr. Speaker, Jason will live within the hearts and minds of all of those that he touched. His brave and selfless service ensures that he is not a forgotten hero. This tragic event cut short Jason's dreams and our entire community joins together to offer our sympathies and condolences. At this time of remembrance, I would like to extend my deepest sympathy and the sympathy of this Congress to Jason's family and friends and let them know that my thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, to aid and direct an educational institution is a noble task and is worthy of recognition from this prestigious body. On October 8, 2001, Dr. James Voss will announce his retirement from the Colorado State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital. As Dr. Voss steps down, I would like to recognize the contributions that he has made to so many individuals and to Colorado State University. Stemming from a childhood on a farm and exposure to plowing fields with draft horses, James used his knowledge in 1977 to break ground for the Veterinary Teaching Hospital with a team of horses. He has been an integral member of University community for 43 years dedicated countless hours of service during this time. He has served as the Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences and offered numerous innovations and new ideas to the field of veterinary medicine. Due to his lasting impression on the University, it will rename the celebrated hospital the James L. Voss Veterinary Teaching Hospital. While James remains humble in his tribute, his efforts have raised the national reputation of the Colorado State University veterinary college, which is now recognized as the number two school to attend in the nation for animal health and research according to US News and World Report. Dr. Voss received his degree from the same institution in veterinary medicine and then returned to his alma mater to occupy the academic positions of Department Chair, Director of the Veterinary Hospital and Assistant Dean prior to becoming the Dean in 1986. Under his leadership, the research budget has increased, a number of academic programs were established and the academic curriculum bolstered. Mr. Speaker, Dr. James Voss has left a lasting mark on Colorado State University and all of its students. Dr. Voss has made significant advancements in the field of veterinary medicine applicable all over the world. As James celebrates his retirement, I would like to congratulate Dr. James Voss on all of his accomplishments and extend my warmest regards and best wishes to him throughout the many years to come. He is an outstanding administrator and educator and he should be very proud of everything that he has achieved.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the bravery of a great American, Nick Gray, who fought for the United States in World War II and survived the attack at Pearl Harbor and the battle at Guadalcanal. Mr. Gray now resides in Montrose, Colorado. Mr. Gray and the rest of the 25th Infantry Division were stationed in Hawaii at the time of the attack at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. He awoke to the sounds of 351 Japanese attack planes destroying the base around him. Nick and his captain narrowly escaped the destruction by finding refuge in a river that swept them off the island of Guadalcanal and threw them into the depths of the Pacific Ocean. Nick fought the currents of the ocean throughout the day before making collapsing near the shore where he was pulled ashore by a comrade. Thousands of Americans were lost that day, but Nick Gray survived and continued to fight for our nation in the Pacific. He took part in the historic Guadalcanal campaign and the march to Tokyo. Many more Americans lost their lives during the war, but Nick fought valiantly and survived. However, Nick's good friend, Marion Burch, lost his life in the Pacific shortly after the two had the opportunity to spend some time together. Now at the age of eighty-two years old, Nick enjoys a more peaceful life in Colorado. Mr. Speaker, Nick Gray courageously fought for our country. From the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor through the end of WWII, Mr. Gray remained steadfast in serving the United States. We are indebted to him for his bravery and perseverance during a time of mayhem and struggle. It is my honor to thank and pay tribute to Mr. Gray for defending our nation and preserving American freedoms.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the loss of a very generous, caring member of our community. Frank Harriette Caldwell died on Sunday, September 16, 2001 after enduring a prolonged illness. A woman devoted to helping others, ``Frankie'' passed away at the age of 83. Mrs. Caldwell was born on June 2, 1918 in Galveston, Texas. She received her teaching degree at the University of Denver and began her life of service. She started teaching in Colorado at the Mitchell Elementary School in 1956 and remained there for twenty-seven years. She retired from teaching in 1983. Although her career in teaching contributed significantly to the children in her community, she did not stop there. She was also active in fundraising for charities, an active member of the Denver Links and contributed significantly to other local organizations including the Denver Junior Police Band. In addition to these contributions to her community, she was a loving wife of sixty years and mother to four. Mrs. Caldwell was also the proud grandmother to eleven and great-grandmother to seven. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Caldwell was a valued member of her community and will be missed by many. Her charity has affected so many lives in so many ways. She will be remembered and loved for all that she has done. I would like to express my deep sympathy to her family in this time of mourning and thank her for the contributions to our community.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the selfless dedication of the Montrose County Sheriff's Posse. This organization in Montrose County consists of over forty members that volunteer their time and services to their community. The Posse helps the residents of Montrose County in times of need by providing assistance with search and rescue efforts and forest fire control as well as many other relief activities. In the year 2000, they provided over 2,300 hours of not only their time and effort but also their own equipment. They have managed to remain an effective organization because of the dedication of their volunteer members. The Montrose County Sheriff's Posse provides important public service to a community that makes an effort to financially fund the volunteer organization. Mr. Speaker, the Montrose County Sheriff's Posse provides an essential service to their community. Their commitment to such an important cause is admirable. I would like to thank the Posse for their valuable assistance and wish them continued success and community support in their future efforts.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the efforts made by Mr. Ron Borski on behalf of all war veterans of the great State of Colorado. Mr. Borski single-handedly started a campaign to create a veterans memorial in Carbondale, Colorado. After fourteen months of maneuvering his way through the state legislature, he has succeeded in his mission. A resolution was adopted by the state legislature on April 17, 2001 to rename the Highway 133 Bridge in Carbondale. On Memorial Day, it has become tradition that veterans throw a wreath from the bridge in remembrance of soldiers whose lives were lost in battle. This ``Veterans Memorial Bridge,'' seems an appropriate tribute. Due to Mr. Borski's noble efforts there will be a formal dedication ceremony for the renaming of the bridge on November 11, 2001. A monument will also be dedicated at the Scenic Overlook off of Highway 82, which looks out to the bridge. Mr. Speaker, this project was the vision of one man who worked tirelessly in the name of all veterans. He undertook this mission on his own and saw it through to the end. I would like to recognize Ron Borski for his commitment to such a worthwhile cause. The State of Colorado and veterans across the country appreciate Ron's contribution.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, to place your life in the line of duty day in and day out for the sake of others is an honorable and noble task, yet that is exactly what police officers do regularly. I would like to take the opportunity to recognize Sergeant Daniel P. O'Shea for his outstanding service to his community as a member of the Denver Police Department. Sergeant Daniel P. O'Shea has been named one of America's finest at the upcoming TOP COPS Awards ceremony. Officer O'Shea is one of only twenty officers to be honored at the ceremony. I'm proud to know that the State of Colorado is so well represented with Sergeant O'Shea being named in the top echelon of police officers across our entire nation. Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Daniel P. O'Shea has acted with great professionalism in all that he has done. His top priority is the safety and protection of the people in his community. It is my pleasure to acknowledge Sergeant O'Shea's accomplishments. He is a role model for all Colorado law officers and I wish him the warmest regards and best wishes in his continued service to his community.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, to place your life in harms way in order to defend our Nation is indeed a noble and honorable action. Hubert Douglas Tabor dedicated himself by serving in World War II and is certainly worthy of the praise and admiration of this body. During the campaign in Northern Burma, Hubert placed his well-being before all else in order to ensure a victory for the Allies in that war-stricken area. Hubert was raised on a farm in Colorado. Throughout his time there, he grew tired of horses and wished to escape from the farm life by signing up for the Army. However, after entering the Army, the Army recognized that Hubert possessed superior riding skills and was sent to Ft. Riley, Kansas to be a member of the 124th Cavalry. This unit was the last mounted cavalry in the Army and it was with the 124th that Hubert deservingly received his silver spurs due to his accomplishments in the service. Upon his relocation to Burma, his role was that of a packer. The 124th Cavalry, teamed with the 56th Cavalry and the 613th Field Artillery Battalion, was charged with the duty of opening the Burma Road that was closed by the Japanese. As the team trekked across the Himalayan landscape, the Japanese enemy was encountered at night. Although Hubert had several close calls during his service, perhaps none was as serious as one that occurred during this battle. Hubert and a fellow soldier were assigned the duty of attracting the attention of the Japanese to distract them while the rest of his team was able to penetrate the enemy's flank. His friend was killed in the line of duty while Hubert survived, but not without debilitating injuries. Due to his bravery and courage, Mr. Speaker, Hubert Tabor was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star. This battle was brutal, but Hubert offered his patriotism to our country and fought for its sake in Burma. I would like to take this moment to recognize the incredible sacrifices that Hubert made for our country and thank him for his service to our Flag. Hubert helped to make our country great and I extend my warmest regards and best wishes to Hubert for many years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor the bravery and military service of William Adams, a great American who currently resides in Montrose, Colorado. William Adams learned very important lessons about life and death when he was faced with the challenges of self-preservation and patriotism in the South Pacific during WWII. At the young age of nineteen, William Adams, along with the rest of his advance landing unit of the 4th Marines landed on Saipan. There he struggled through one of the bloodiest campaigns his Division had seen and finally took control of the small island. By the end of the battle, 3,400 American soldiers had lost their lives. William managed to survive several other battles including the invasions at Tarawa and Tinian. He finished his tours in the South Pacific having been wounded three times and being awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. William is a proud servant of his nation, exemplified by several accounts of bravery including putting his own life on the line to rescue a fellow soldier. William is no longer the young man who landed the many shores of the Pacific Theater to defend freedom and liberty in the United States. Amidst all of the violence and death, William Adams returned to the United States although many of his friends did not. William now lives a peaceful life as a resident of Colorado but the sacrifices he made while serving our nation will never be forgotten. Mr. Adams fought selflessly for the ideals and protection of all Americans. He helped to ensure that our freedoms and way of life would live on. It is my pleasure to honor William Adams for the great sacrifices that he has made and assure him that his countrymen are grateful for his service.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize a very caring and considerate individual who recently passed away. Joseph Jurkulak was a modest man who gave so much to the children of his community. Mr. Jurkulak was Glenwood Springs, Colorado's ``Secret Santa'' for the last nineteen years. He died in his home in Glenwood Springs at the age of 86. In 1965, Mr. Jurkulak and his wife Ann moved from Denver to Glenwood Springs after Joseph retired as a construction superintendent. He was a loving husband and father but will be remembered by most for his generosity to the children of his community. In the early 1980s, Joe joined the Toys for Tots project and began collecting and fixing used toys. These toys became the highlight of many children's Christmas celebration after they were distributed by local police departments. He asked the police to keep his identity anonymous so that the department would receive credit for the gifts. For nineteen years, he made sure that not one child in his community went without a Christmas gift. Mr. Speaker, Joseph Jurkulak will certainly be missed by his family and community. He dedicated his retired life to bringing smiles to youngsters throughout Glenwood Springs. I extend my deepest regrets and warmest regards to Joseph's family and friends during this time of mourning.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, the State of Colorado is growing at a tremendous pace and it requires sincere dedication and knowledge to help manage such expansion. After sixteen years of service to the people of Delta County as a member of the Planning Commission, Lee Sperry has decided to hand in his resignation. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the important contributions that Lee has made and thank him for his years of service. A lot has changed since Lee first joined the Planning Commission. Ideas of unbridled growth have been tempered with concerns of open land preservation. Throughout this fundamental change, Lee has always attempted to maintain a balanced perspective between the county's master plan and the desires of the public seeking to live out their goals and dreams. Lee has a keen interest in ensuring that the common person is not overlooked in deliberations. Mr. Speaker, as we wrestle with the issue of growth in Colorado, Lee Sperry has done an outstanding job shepherding that process for over sixteen years. He has truly helped to preserve the heritage of Colorado while allowing it to progress into the future judiciously. It is with great appreciation that I recognize Lee today and I extend my warmest regards to him upon his retirement and wish him many happy years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, technology has become an important tool today in terms of nearly every facet of our lives--from legislation to the completion of daily routines. It has been used to reinvent many systems and increase ties between people. Marc Holtzman, the first Secretary of Technology in the State of Colorado, has accepted this new and transformational role to merge technology with government, economics and education. I would like to recognize the work of this honorable man and all that he has done, and will continue to do, for the great State of Colorado. Following his graduation from Leigh University, Marc founded an investment firm called MeesPierson EurAmerica, which was later sold to become the 11th largest bank in the world. His time in Europe has allowed him to become an authority on political development. Now, he serves in the cabinet-level position for Governor Owens while earning only $1 per year. During the week, Marc resides in Denver, but during the weekend he travels to his house in the Roaring Fork Valley--a great opportunity to enjoy the mountain environment amidst his responsibilities. Colorado is home to many high-tech industries and Marc plays a crucial role in securing a successful future for these companies, along with creating an environment conducive to attracting new businesses. Furthermore, Marc has been put in charge of creating quasi-charter schools that aim to build a bridge across the technological divide with the support of Microsoft's Bill Gates. Throughout all of his projects, Marc has proven to be a valuable contributor to Colorado and has a high success rate in all that he does. Mr. Speaker, at a time when technology is becoming such an important part of our world, the convergence of technology and governance is inevitable. Marc is ensuring that we implement this technology and in return, benefit the people of Colorado. Additionally, his charismatic leadership has led to many innovative experiments and successes. He is truly navigating Colorado through this remarkable revolution. I would like to honor his contributions and recognize the importance of his service to the State of Colorado. I extend my warmest regards to him and wish him the best in years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment and acknowledge the selfless contributions of an extremely important member of our community. Ms. Marti Duprey has spent the majority of her life caring for and helping others. She has continuously put the well being of others ahead of her own. Ms. Duprey, a Catholic nun, moved to Glenwood Springs, Colorado in 1973 after having spent eighteen years working with the Rev. Jesse Jackson's ``Operation Breadbasket'' in Chicago. Her education, consisting of Bachelor's Degrees in education and social work and a Master's Degree in counseling, provided her with the proper tools for her work with the community of Glenwood Springs ever since. She provides three very important functions for the residents of Glenwood Springs. Whether it is her involvement in the Defiance Community Theatre, her counseling in the Helping Hands Grief Group or as Program Manager for Mountain Valley Weavers, she unselfishly helps others find ways of expressing themselves in a more self-reliant manner and provides them with outlets that will increase their confidence and happiness. Marti Duprey provides very important services for the grieving, the disabled and many other members of her community. Her compassion for others makes her a truly valuable member of the Glenwood Springs community. I would like to recognize Ms. Marti Duprey for her wonderful efforts and contributions that have touched the lives of so many. Her acts of care and compassion deserve our recognition and I would like to extend my best wishes and warm regards to her for many years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity and pay tribute to Michael Reyelts for his significant contributions to our educational system. Mr. Reyelts teaches English as a second language to students at the Colorado Mountain College in Rifle, Colorado. Through his lessons, he not only teaches English, but he also educates students on how to adapt to American society. He has been a positive influence on many members of our community. Mr. Reyelts studied Spanish while attending high school and mastered the language while on a two-year church mission to Argentina, where he worked both in cities and in remote areas. Upon returning from Argentina, he attended Brigham Young University where he studied secondary education and English as a second language. In 1999, Michael received his masters in education with an emphasis in English as a second language. Dozens of students attend his classes three nights a week. Michael has adopted a style of teaching that has proven to be very successful. He creates a comfortable atmosphere within the classroom by joking around with his students and making them feel at ease in what can be a stressful situation. His instruction certainly contains grammar lessons but Michael also tries to stress a practical understanding of the English language that his students will hear in every day life. Michael Reyelts does not stop simply at teaching the English language. He also relates current events to his students as a means of providing examples for understanding the English language. Mr. Speaker, Michael Reyelts truly cares about his students and provides them with the valuable skills that increase their confidence and provide them more opportunities to reach their goals. I would like to thank him for his commitment to such an important cause and congratulate him on his achievements.